‘Wattana’ reveals Court dismisses Senate Election Interference Case, says ‘Phumtham’ acted lawfully, ruling binding on all agencies and has no effect on political status

Today (Jan 21), the Judge of the Constitutional Court designated the appointment to make an oral statement, consultations, and votes in the case of the President of the Senate pledging the Constitutional Court to decide a judgement according to a determination pursuant to Section 170, paragraph three, read in conjunction with Section 82 of the Constitution, whether the status quo of Mr Bhumtham Wechayachai, former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence and Pol. Col. Tawee Sodsong, former Ministry of Justice, being terminated personally under Section 170, paragraph one (4), in conjunction with Section 160 (4) and (5) of the Constitution.

In this case, the Constitutional Court has a resolution to accept the petition for consideration on March 26, 2025. They had ordered the accused to send the declared documents and follow the consideration procedures.

The Constitutional Court then ordered Pol. Col. Tawee to step down as Minister of Justice on May 14, 2025, in his capacity as supervisor of the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) and Vice Chairman of the Special Cases Committee under the Special Cases Investigation Act B.E. 2004, in accordance with Section 82,(2) of the constitution. Mr. Bhumtham Wechayachai was also ousted from his post as Minister, and former PM Paetongtarn Shinawatra was also removed by Constitutional Court order 17/2568, which eliminated the entire Cabinet.

At 3:00 p.m., the Constitutional Court sat to deliver its ruling. In its decision, the Court concluded that the investigation conducted by officials, as alleged by the petitioner, revealed no evidence showing that the second respondent exercised authority to direct or control officials to carry out such actions. Nor did the evidence indicate that either respondent engaged in any conduct amounting to intimidation, issuing orders, or restricting the expression of opinions in a manner that constituted interference with or undue influence over other members of the Department of Special Investigation committee.

According to the ruling, no evidence was found to show that the respondents were involved in proposing the appointment of officials of the Department of Special Investigation (DSI). Nor was there any evidence supporting the allegation that the two respondents lacked manifest honesty and integrity as alleged, which would have constituted a disqualification under Section 160 of the Constitution, or that they had engaged in conduct or practices amounting to a serious breach of ethical standards as prescribed under the ethical standards for Constitutional Court justices and holders of positions in independent constitutional organs. Consequently, there were no grounds under Section 160 of the Constitution that would result in the termination of the ministerial status of the two respondents on an individual basis under Section 170, paragraph one.

The Court further found no facts or evidence indicating that either respondent had issued orders or interfered in any manner with the duties of the Election Commission in connection with the alleged Senate election collusion case.

Accordingly, the Constitutional Court ruled that the ministerial status of the two respondents did not terminate on an individual basis. However, their ministerial status had already ended earlier pursuant to Constitutional Court Ruling No. 17/2568.

Copywriter: Siam Associated Press (SAP) Editorial Department
Pictures: Some illustrations come from the Internet. If there is any infringement, please contact us to delete it.
Source of material: official media /online news